Statutory revision dismissed for default restored for hearing, subject to the petitioner’s mandatory appearance.

The petitioner held a Public Distribution System (PDS) licence, being Licence No. 09/2012. The Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Maharajganj, cancelled the licence by order dated 10 March 2018, communicated through Memo No. 155 dated 20 March 2018.

The petitioner’s statutory appeal, Supply Appeal No. 26/2018-19, was dismissed by the Collector, Siwan, on 15 July 2021, affirming the cancellation order. The petitioner thereafter filed Supply Revision Case No. 192/2022 before the Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra, which was dismissed for default on 21 May 2025. The petitioner consequently invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court seeking, inter alia, quashing of the revisional dismissal order and restoration of his PDS licence

Whether the Commissioner’s order dated 21 May 2025 dismissing Supply Revision Case No. 192/2022 for default ought to be set aside and the revision restored for consideration on merits?

Whether the orders cancelling the petitioner’s PDS licence and dismissing his statutory appeal should be quashed or the licence restored by the High Court?

The Court applied the procedural principle that a statutory proceeding dismissed for default may be remanded for hearing where the petitioner seeks an opportunity to pursue the remedy and the parties consent to disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage

The Court directed the statutory revisional authority to provide an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order, thereby applying the principles of natural justice and reasoned decision-making

The petitioner fairly acknowledged that his revision had been dismissed for default and sought remand to the Commissioner. Since the immediate grievance concerned the procedural dismissal of the revision rather than the merits of the licence cancellation, the Court set aside the order dated 21 May 2025 and restored the matter for reconsideration.

It directed the petitioner to appear before the Commissioner on 27 August 2026 and required the Commissioner to hear the petitioner and pass a speaking order expeditiously, preferably within two months of the date of appearance. The Court did not independently examine the validity of the licensing authority’s cancellation order or the Collector’s appellate order.

The petitioner was directed to appear before the Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra, on 27 August 2026 with a copy of the High Court’s order. The Commissioner was directed to afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order, preferably within two months of the petitioner’s appearance. The Court clarified that if the petitioner failed to appear on 27 August 2026, the order dismissing the revision for default would stand revived; the petitioner had undertaken not to seek further relief in that event. The prayers challenging the licence cancellation and appellate order were not decided on merits.